Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over what he described as the unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 and filed on February 20 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, El-Rufai is challenging the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). He named the ICPC as the first respondent, the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate Court as the second respondent, the Inspector-General of Police as the third respondent, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as the fourth respondent.
The former governor, through his legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, is seeking seven reliefs, including a declaration that the search warrant authorising the February 19 raid on his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, is “invalid, null and void.”
He argued that the warrant lacked particularity, contained material drafting errors, was ambiguous in its execution parameters, overly broad in scope, and unsupported by probable cause. According to him, the alleged defects rendered the search unconstitutional and in violation of Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the right to privacy.
El-Rufai further contended that the raid, executed at about 2 p.m. by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force, violated his fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.
He is also asking the court to declare inadmissible any evidence obtained during the search, arguing that it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards. Additionally, he is seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from relying on or tendering any items seized during the operation in any investigation or prosecution against him.
Among the reliefs sought is an order directing the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items allegedly seized from his residence, along with a detailed inventory.
The ₦1 billion damages claim comprises ₦300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress, ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies, and ₦300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious and oppressive execution of a defective warrant. He also claimed ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees.
In his grounds of argument, Iyamu maintained that the warrant contravened Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, as well as Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
He argued that Section 143 of the ACJA requires that applications for search warrants be supported by written information on oath establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he said was absent in this case. He further submitted that Section 144 mandates specific descriptions of the premises and items to be searched to prevent the issuance of general warrants, alleging that the warrant in question vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without proper detail.
According to him, the document also contained errors relating to the address, date, and district designation, in breach of Section 146 of the ACJA, while its broad authorisation to “all officers” was inconsistent with Section 147. He added that contradictory language regarding the time of execution undermined compliance with Section 148.
Citing judicial precedents, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, Iyamu argued that evidence obtained through defective or vague warrants is unlawful and inadmissible.
In a supporting affidavit deposed to by Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, it was stated that the officers who carried out the search failed to submit themselves for search before conducting the operation, as required by law. Shaba also alleged that the warrant did not specify the items sought and that the magistrate failed to indicate the magisterial district in which he sits.
He claimed that during the raid, officers seized personal documents and electronic devices, causing humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress. According to the affidavit, none of the seized items has been returned.
The suit is now before the Federal High Court for determination.
